Contact Us

Call us on 0800 246 11 22  - 

Brint v Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust [2021] EWHC 290 (QB) (09 February 2021)

 

Brint v Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust [2021] EWHC 290 (QB) (09 February 2021)

This claim arises from an extravasation injury following a CT scan with contrast carried out on 29 December 2013  Liability, causation and quantum are all in dispute. There is no issue that C suffered an extravasation injury. However, there is considerable dispute as to events before, during and after the scan. On the eve of trial, D notified D that it intended to allege that she had been fundamentally dishonest in respect of the whole claim or at least a substantial part of it. [1]

At the time of the CT scan C was 69 years old. On 9 December 2013, she attended D... noted a slight swelling on her neck and referred her for a full body CT scan [3]

C's case is that the treatment was negligent and that to proceed with the scan without C's consent amounted to an assault. She alleges that as a result she has developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and clinical depression causing her significant disability... [5]

To say that C has had a significant medical history before this incident is an understatement. Her medical records extend to 12 lever arch files. She has complained of physical symptoms in many areas of her body over the years, some of which have been diagnosed with an organic cause yet many others not... [18]

C has not persuaded me that there has been any breach of duty on the part of D when preforming [performing?] the scan. [58]

C has failed to satisfy me that there was any breach of duty on the part of the defendant in relation to any aspect of the CT scan on the 29 December 2013. The claim therefore fails on the issue of liability. [67]

I am left far from satisfied that her current symptoms and level of disability are caused by the extravasation injury to her left upper limb in December 2013. [95]

although her evidence was wholly unreliable in the sense that I do not accept it, she has not been dishonest. I therefore reject the allegation of fundamental dishonesty. [102]

Click here for judgment